Maybe it could be said that people evolved to have free-will. I'm not saying evolution must be false without free-will, but I do think there's room for inclusion. Just like I think considering certain things as deterministic can be useful for some applications, but don't see why it should be an all-inclusive interpretation of reality.

but I do think there's room for inclusion. Just like I think considering certain things as deterministic can be useful for some applications, but don't see why it should be an all-inclusive interpretation of reality.

Why not? The idea of free will describes nothing, adds nothing to our understanding of reality, and leads to nonsensical conclusions about reality. Its only appeal is that it feels nice.

Continuing from Post 274...The Photon is a teenie weenie bundle of electromagnetic force which produces the electromagnetic force and is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Huh? -Monkeymind

OK to beat a dead horse. There is a difference between speed and acceleration:

The factor by which the speed of light is decreased in a material is called the refractive index of the material. In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a delayed wave. In a particle picture, the slowing can instead be described as a blending of the photon with quantum excitations of the matter (quasi-particles such as phonons and excitons) to form a polariton; this polariton has a nonzero effective mass, which means that it cannot travel at c.

Alternatively, photons may be viewed as always traveling at c, even in matter, but they have their phase shifted (delayed or advanced) upon interaction with atomic scatters: this modifies their wavelength and momentum, but not speed.[89] A light wave made up of these photons does travel slower than the speed of light. In this view the photons are "bare", and are scattered and phase shifted, while in the view of the preceding paragraph the photons are "dressed" by their interaction with matter, and move without scattering or phase shifting, but at a lower speed.

Name: Christopher S.Why is it that when light travels from a more dense to a less dense medium, its speed is higher? I've read answers to this question in your archives but, sadly, still don't get it. One answer (Jasjeet S Bagla) says that we must not ask the question because light is massless, hence questions of acceleration don't make sense. It does, however, seem to be OK to talk about different speeds of light. If you start at one speed and end at a higher one, why is one not allowed to talk about acceleration? Bagla goes on to say that it depends on how the em fields behave in a given medium. It begs the question: what is it about, say, Perspex and air that makes light accelerate, oops, travel at different speeds? If you're dealing with the same ray of light, one is forced to speak of acceleration, no? What other explanation is there for final velocity>initial velocity? Arthur Smith mentioned a very small "evanescent" component that travels ahead at c. Where can I learn more about this? Sorry for the long question. I understand that F=ma and if there is no m, you cannot talk about a, but, again, you have one velocity higher than another for the same thing. I need to know more than "that's just the way em fields are!"

Replies: Christopher,An explanation that satisfies me relates to travel through an interactive medium. When light interacts with an atom, the photon of light is absorbed and then emitted. For a moment, the energy of the light is within the atom. This causes a slight delay. Light travels at the standard speed of light until interacting with another atom. [/b]It is absorbed and emitted, causing another slight delay. The average effect is taking more time to travel a meter through glass than through air. This works like a slower speed. An individual photon does not actually slow down. It gets delayed repeatedly by the atoms of the medium. A more dense medium has more atoms per meter to cause delays.

Dr. Ken MellendorfPhysics Instructor Illinois Central College

Congratulations! on not being willing to accept "that is just the way em fields are!" The answer to your inquiry is not all that simple (my opinion), but I won't try to do so in the limited space allowed here, not to say my own limitations of knowledge.

Like so many "simple" physics questions, I find the most lucid, but accurate, explanation in Richard Feynman's, "Lectures on Physics" which most libraries will have. Specifically, see Volume I, Chapter 31-1 through 31-6, which describes refraction, dispersion, absorption, and diffraction. The "answer" has to do with how matter alters the electric field of incident radiation, but I won't pretend to be able to do a better job than Feynman.

Good question, Vince Calder

The answer is that you are not dealing with the same ray of light. In vacuum a photon just keeps going at the speed of light. In a medium, however, it interacts with the atoms, often being absorbed while bumping an atomic or molecular motion into a higher energy state. The excited atom/molecule then can jump to a lower energy state, emitting a photon while doing so. This can obviously make light appear to travel slower in a dense medium. Best, Richard J. Plano

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

This may annoy some people but I need to address this point: quanta of light have no mass. The time dilation aspect of relativity applies to mass. This is a crucial distinction that Gill didn't (still doesn't?) understand. Thus the misconception about light being "timeless" - not at all true. Light's natural state is to travel at c so nothing needs to act upon it to "accelerate" it back up to c; the only necessary event is the removal of the force (or matter) slowing the light.

So do you think light ages? It's the same light that was present since the big bang. That's my whole overall point, it's timeless, because it doesn't age. And if someone where to 'catch up' to a light beam, there would be no experience of a time dimension.

How massively stupid are you? Living things age. Inanimate objects don't. We inaccurately say the things around us "age" because the natural entropy causes gradual decay of larger structures. And just because something doesn't age or decay does NOT mean it is "timeless" in whatever sense you mean it. Please, please, please stop trying to pervert science into mystical crap.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

This may annoy some people but I need to address this point: quanta of light have no mass. The time dilation aspect of relativity applies to mass. This is a crucial distinction that Gill didn't (still doesn't?) understand. Thus the misconception about light being "timeless" - not at all true. Light's natural state is to travel at c so nothing needs to act upon it to "accelerate" it back up to c; the only necessary event is the removal of the force (or matter) slowing the light.

I did leave a lot out because Gill seems to be having massive problems understanding that these are physical events that have no mystical/divine component. I figured he would misuse/misunderstand further facts. I was right but here goes.

Point being.....its very, very easy for our "senses" to thoroughly misinform us about the nature of "reality" - even when that reality is physically solid and right in our faces. To use them as an basis for claims about something immaterial and ethereal.....well, lets just say I'd use a hell of a lot more caution in my approach.

Anfauglir is very correct in the statements about our senses: our brains work very hard to assemble a version of reality that is close enough so we can function but not 100% accurate. But Gill is again wrong when he says in reply:

Of course, I wouldn't disagree that senses can be misleading. But, why would all humans develop a sense that's 100% false? When, all the other well-known senses can be said to be telling us at least some of the time about the objective reality?

(Bold added) At no time did you even hint that any of our senses are 100% false.

Photons are never actually transmitted through or reflected from solid matter - they are absorbed and re-emitted. This fact even applies to the "colors" we see; the material only re-emits a limited bandwidth which the light receptors in our eyes interpret as a color. "Color" is also influenced by its surroundings; there are optical illusions which demonstrate this fact. The same shade of grey is interpreted by our brains as dark if the surroundings make it look as if it is a shadow and interpreted as light if the surroundings make it look as if it is in the light.Our consciousness is a massive juggling act assembling the data from our senses into a holographic image of the world which we then use to base our reactions on. This is part of why we can imagine supernatural entities acting in the world – our brains are seeking connections to make sense of the world around us and supernatural forces or entities are extrapolated and then fitted into our model of the world to fill in where we think gaps exist (even when there are no gaps).

This may annoy some people but I need to address this point: quanta of light have no mass. The time dilation aspect of relativity applies to mass. This is a crucial distinction that Gill didn't (still doesn't?) understand. Thus the misconception about light being "timeless" - not at all true. Light's natural state is to travel at c so nothing needs to act upon it to "accelerate" it back up to c; the only necessary event is the removal of the force (or matter) slowing the light.

So do you think light ages? It's the same light that was present since the big bang. That's my whole overall point, it's timeless, because it doesn't age. And if someone where to 'catch up' to a light beam, there would be no experience of a time dimension.

How massively stupid are you? Living things age. Inanimate objects don't. We inaccurately say the things around us "age" because the natural entropy causes gradual decay of larger structures. And just because something doesn't age or decay does NOT mean it is "timeless" in whatever sense you mean it. Please, please, please stop trying to pervert science into mystical crap.

You think calling people 'stupid' is going to get people to agree with you? So something which does not age, can't be said to be 'timeless' or 'eternal'. Ok then, that's your opinion and I don't really care much since you must resort to name calling to try to get a point across.

Of course, I wouldn't disagree that senses can be misleading. But, why would all humans develop a sense that's 100% false? When, all the other well-known senses can be said to be telling us at least some of the time about the objective reality?

(Bold added) At no time did you even hint that any of our senses are 100% false but he goes there anyways and ASSumes that all other senses are perfect.

So when I say 'senses can be said to be telling us at least some of the time', 'some of the time' you interpret as me saying they're all perfect? And, you don't think it's a contradiction to say that 'free-will is an illusion', yet 'sometimes my sense of agency is telling the truth about reality'.?

Our consciousness is a massive juggling act assembling the data from our senses into a holographic image of the world which we then use to base our reactions on. This is part of why we can imagine supernatural entities acting in the world – our brains are seeking connections to make sense of the world around us and supernatural forces or entities are extrapolated and then fitted into our model of the world to fill in where we think gaps exist (even when there are no gaps).

...nicely put

Even when we are concentrating most fiercely on one facet we (the antenna) are still unconsciously receiving every other input we are capable of.

And the receiver doesn't necessarily accurately "picture" the input, as the receiver itself affects the input, or can even generate false data.

The most demons I have ever seen are when I am hours into focussed effort on a painting, and I start "seeing" swift momentary peripheral shapes/entities, that are "real" in terms of apparent received data, but are not real at all, but are only fatigue illusory ephemera.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

So when I say 'senses can be said to be telling us at least some of the time', 'some of the time' you interpret as me saying they're all perfect? And, you don't think it's a contradiction to say that 'free-will is an illusion', yet 'sometimes my sense of agency is telling the truth about reality'.?

K.

I screwed up big time and managed to miss the "at least some of the time" so I have editted the post to remove the very inaccurate statement.

How massively stupid are you? Living things age. Inanimate objects don't. We inaccurately say the things around us "age" because the natural entropy causes gradual decay of larger structures. And just because something doesn't age or decay does NOT mean it is "timeless" in whatever sense you mean it. Please, please, please stop trying to pervert science into mystical crap.

You think calling people 'stupid' is going to get people to agree with you? So something which does not age, can't be said to be 'timeless' or 'eternal'. Ok then, that's your opinion and I don't really care much since you must resort to name calling to try to get a point across.

As for the name calling, I actually asked if you were stupid rather than stating it but I will admit that the implication was there. Also, I was not trying to get you to agree with me. I was trying to get you to wake up and pay attention. You appeared to me to be blithely going along ignoring crucial points and twisting things to suit your points.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

But experiencing sensory data doesn't necessarily guarantee accurate appraisal. Sitting in a train at the station and experiencing the train starting to move off, when in fact it is still at rest and the train on the next track has started to move would be a classic example.

Agreed, but that kind of illusion is based on something. Two actual trains, in that case.

But experiencing sensory data doesn't necessarily guarantee accurate appraisal. Sitting in a train at the station and experiencing the train starting to move off, when in fact it is still at rest and the train on the next track has started to move would be a classic example.

Agreed, but that kind of illusion is based on something. Two actual trains, in that case.

What is the illusion of free will based on?

Experiencing life without the filter of knowledge of determinism applied, or basically without awareness that ones perceptions are wrong. (restating that there is no appreciable difference with that filter applied)

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

I think it has a whole lot to do with our ability to look back in time and review the actions we've taken while at the same time imagining how things would have been like if we'd just zigged instead of zagged. Plus the ability to look to the future and imagine the consequences of our actions before taking them. Those evolved cognitive abilities are at least part of what make us believe we have free will. If we didn't have the ability to do that, life would be very different I think.

But I believe even the act of contemplating the consequences of our actions is simply another factor that your brain takes into account before taking the only action your brain was ever going to take in the first place. (To reuse the stream analogy, it's another rock in the path). That process of decision making is nothing more than chemical and neurological interactions in the brain, is it not?

In other words, if someone were faced with a decision, and after they'd made the decision, their life rewound itself over and over again, with NOTHING being changed; then you would go through the exact same consideration process again. The chemical and neurological interactions would play out in exactly the same timing and sequence (meaning you would be analyzing the same factors in exactly the same way), and the decision you would come out with on the other side would never, ever change. Obviously there is no way to test this theory, but if our brains really are nothing more than sacks of chemicals and nerves, and those chemicals and nerves are responsible for our consciousness, our thoughts, and our actions, then there would have to be some sort of alternate mechanism responsible for our brains ability to act independently of what those chemical and nerve interactions are doing (because there is no reason to think that those chemical and nerve interactions would play out differently from one rewound instance to the next if everything was exactly the same).

I'm not saying that mechanism doesn't exist. I just find it far less reasonable to say it does (unfortunately, because I'd like to have free will).

I hope that makes sense. I'm not a big fan of the free will conversation. It gets way too deep for my tastes.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

So when I say 'senses can be said to be telling us at least some of the time', 'some of the time' you interpret as me saying they're all perfect? And, you don't think it's a contradiction to say that 'free-will is an illusion', yet 'sometimes my sense of agency is telling the truth about reality'.?

K.

I screwed up big time and managed to miss the "at least some of the time" so I have editted the post to remove the very inaccurate statement.

How massively stupid are you? Living things age. Inanimate objects don't. We inaccurately say the things around us "age" because the natural entropy causes gradual decay of larger structures. And just because something doesn't age or decay does NOT mean it is "timeless" in whatever sense you mean it. Please, please, please stop trying to pervert science into mystical crap.

You think calling people 'stupid' is going to get people to agree with you? So something which does not age, can't be said to be 'timeless' or 'eternal'. Ok then, that's your opinion and I don't really care much since you must resort to name calling to try to get a point across.

As for the name calling, I actually asked if you were stupid rather than stating it but I will admit that the implication was there. Also, I was not trying to get you to agree with me. I was trying to get you to wake up and pay attention. You appeared to me to be blithely going along ignoring crucial points and twisting things to suit your points.

No worries. We may have disagreements, that's fine. But yes, I do twist things , if you want to call it that, at times to make my points. But my intention isn't to be misleading towards anyone, I just believe that many of these concepts are often open to different interpretations.

I think it has a whole lot to do with our ability to look back in time and review the actions we've taken while at the same time imagining how things would have been like if we'd just zigged instead of zagged. Plus the ability to look to the future and imagine the consequences of our actions before taking them. Those evolved cognitive abilities are at least part of what make us believe we have free will. If we didn't have the ability to do that, life would be very different I think.

But I believe even the act of contemplating the consequences of our actions is simply another factor that your brain takes into account before taking the only action your brain was ever going to take in the first place. (To reuse the stream analogy, it's another rock in the path). That process of decision making is nothing more than chemical and neurological interactions in the brain, is it not?

In other words, if someone were faced with a decision, and after they'd made the decision, their life rewound itself over and over again, with NOTHING being changed; then you would go through the exact same consideration process again. The chemical and neurological interactions would play out in exactly the same timing and sequence (meaning you would be analyzing the same factors in exactly the same way), and the decision you would come out with on the other side would never, ever change. Obviously there is no way to test this theory, but if our brains really are nothing more than sacks of chemicals and nerves, and those chemicals and nerves are responsible for our consciousness, our thoughts, and our actions, then there would have to be some sort of alternate mechanism responsible for our brains ability to act independently of what those chemical and nerve interactions are doing (because there is no reason to think that those chemical and nerve interactions would play out differently from one rewound instance to the next if everything was exactly the same).

I'm not saying that mechanism doesn't exist. I just find it far less reasonable to say it does (unfortunately, because I'd like to have free will).

I hope that makes sense. I'm not a big fan of the free will conversation. It gets way too deep for my tastes.

Makes sense from a chemical point-of-view. But could I just ask: when you do something you sense is your doing, and someone asks you if you did that thing, and you acknowledge, and say something as to the effect of "yes, I did that", where is this "I" located in those nerves and chemicals?

How many brain cells and chemicals create the "I"?

My answer is zero. Consciousness is indefinite. There's no number of cells or chemicals that can define it. Brain cells and chemicals filter and direct consciousness, they don't create it.* So then there is no cause-effect dilemma, it only occurs if you look at the physical/chemical aspects of things.

Makes sense from a chemical point-of-view. But could I just ask: when you do something you sense is your doing, and someone asks you if you did that thing, and you acknowledge, and say something as to the effect of "yes, I did that", where is this "I" located in those nerves and chemicals?

The sense of self is something that we gain over time as we grow. I believe that has been proven with studies of small children. They are not born with it. It comes with brain development and experiences.

I don't know. I've never counted them. I would think somewhere between zero and 100 billion (the number of nerve cells in the human brain). They say that the brain isn't fully developed until somewhere around age 20, and since we can start seeing the sense of self around age 4, I'd say somewhere in between.

Just because we have a limited understanding of something, doesn't mean its never going to be understood Gill. Making shit up to explain things you don't understand (like where consciousness resides, or whether or not we have a 'spirit') is a practice that went extinct in the rational world about a hundred years ago. It's still bandied around by some, but it's something to make fun of now, not to admire.

Until you can prove this, I disagree completely. Look, all we know for sure is that cells and chemicals play a major role in consciousness and decision making. When those chemical change and / or damage is done to the brain, we know consciousness is seriously affected. There is an obvious direct relationship between the cells and chemicals in the brain and our consciousness / sense of self. This is ALL we know for sure. The theory I propose is that those chemicals and cells interacting together ARE what create consciousness and they ARE what create the illusion of free will. I admit I could be wrong (and that I would like to be wrong), but that is not a difficult leap to make, is it?

You then go about stating that the brain cells and chemicals filter and direct consciousness, but don't create it. That's all fine and dandy to say, but in order to do this, you MUST create something else for which you have absolutely no evidence at all, namely some sort of consciousness creator or consciousness creating mechanism that is independent of the brain, and that exists someplace else, and that we can't study in any way. I tend to be very skeptical of crap like that. It's been proven wrong time and time again. The less stuff like this you have to add in, the better.

Is it not possible that the whole thing is just a natural process that we do not yet fully understand? Given the past 200+ years of victory after victory for the natural explanatory theories, aside from not liking the implications, why would you think your explanation is more likely true? Why is the natural explanation such a problem for you? There are lots of things we don't fully understand yet. That doesn't give us the right to fill it with woo and call it a day. And a lot of your stuff (like this consciousness residing elsewhere stuff) is woo.

So then there is no cause-effect dilemma, it only occurs if you look at the physical/chemical aspects of things.

There would also be no cause - effect dilemma if we postulated that Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus and punched all of us in the face inside the womb to kick start our indefinite consciousness. That doesn't make it correct. But your theory opens up all sorts of other questions which mine answers quite well, such as: Where does this consciousness reside? How do you know where it resides? Is it prone to errors when the filtering mechanisms become faulty? What is this consciousness made of? All of the answers you can come up with here are going to be made up answers with no facts to back it up. That type of thing doesn't sit well with me because it's so often completely wrong.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

In other words, if someone were faced with a decision, and after they'd made the decision, their life rewound itself over and over again, with NOTHING being changed; then you would go through the exact same consideration process again. The chemical and neurological interactions would play out in exactly the same timing and sequence (meaning you would be analyzing the same factors in exactly the same way), and the decision you would come out with on the other side would never, ever change. Obviously there is no way to test this theory, but if our brains really are nothing more than sacks of chemicals and nerves, and those chemicals and nerves are responsible for our consciousness, our thoughts, and our actions, then there would have to be some sort of alternate mechanism responsible for our brains ability to act independently of what those chemical and nerve interactions are doing (because there is no reason to think that those chemical and nerve interactions would play out differently from one rewound instance to the next if everything was exactly the same).

This reminds me of a horror short story I read where a guy gets some wishes and has the best day of his life then at the end of it makes another wish: to live the day over again. So he does. Inculding the part where he wishes to live the day over again - again.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Makes sense from a chemical point-of-view. But could I just ask: when you do something you sense is your doing, and someone asks you if you did that thing, and you acknowledge, and say something as to the effect of "yes, I did that", where is this "I" located in those nerves and chemicals?

How many brain cells and chemicals create the "I"?

My answer is zero. Consciousness is indefinite. There's no number of cells or chemicals that can define it. Brain cells and chemicals filter and direct consciousness, they don't create it.* So then there is no cause-effect dilemma, it only occurs if you look at the physical/chemical aspects of things.

What does create consciousness if the brain doesn't? Can you answer the question without resorting to god/supernatural agencies?

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

^^ For the wish to be accurate, his memory would have to be erased after each cycle, too...so it really wouldn't be so bad. He wouldn't realize that the time-loop was going to keep happening.

I don't recall for certain if he wanted to remember it - intending for the memory to enhance the reliving - or if that was the genie(?) twisting the wish. It has been so long that I don't recall all the details - or the title or author. Sorry.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

So then, the entire human race is suffering from a gross misinterpretation of their own intuitive senses about what's real? Almost, a continuous delusional state that would seem.

Yes, if you like (with nods to the points about the distinction between the information we receive, and how we interpret it).

As has been mentioned, the "sense of self", the sense of being able to control what we do, is an extremely persuasive illusion. Its one I shared for many years, and one that I was only capable of considering and challenging with experience and thought.

The concept is reinforced constantly through language - something I get painfully aware of when discussing the issue - the last sentence above, to be strictly in accordance with my beliefs, should have read:

"It's one I shared for many years, and one that I only reached a stage where my opinion changed when the sum total of my experiences to that point in time led me to that inescapbale conclusion".

Its clunky, its horrible, its completely non-intuitive....but then so is the fact that despite more of my atoms being open space than "real stuff", I don't merge into my chair when I sit on it.

Every aspect of our society is geared around the idea that we HAVE free will....from the reinforcement throughout our formative years that "if you are good, you'll get a reward" with the unspoken assertion that we can actually control whether we are good or not....through to the adult world where crimes are punished as if we had a choice; where "motivation" can be mitigation; where we have performance-related pay; where we "choose" a wife, a job, a car, a house.......every aspect of the world persistently and continuously reinforces, from birth to death, the idea that we have free will, that we have choice....despite all logic and argument making it clear that we do not.

I note, in passing, that you have NOT offered a rebuttal to the "save-game-universe" argument.

So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that 99.9% of the population think free will exists....and - heh - of course they WOULD do, wouldn't they?

My answer is zero. Consciousness is indefinite. There's no number of cells or chemicals that can define it. Brain cells and chemicals filter and direct consciousness, they don't create it.* So then there is no cause-effect dilemma, it only occurs if you look at the physical/chemical aspects of things.

and your answer is wrong, the old "the brain is just a receiver" crap. Just look at brain damange victims, look at hydrocephalics. remove enough brain and yep, you do lose consciousness. Ignoring reality doesn't make your "answers" true in the least.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 11:03:43 AM by velkyn »

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

^^ Oh, but that's just damage to the receiver, velkyn! Gill knows this, because it's part of what he feels when he experiences the world. Ditto Gnu, I suppose.

Indeed (no idea about what Gnu thinks about this). We have a receiever that is built on physical principles. So, what happens when we can't get this "signal" on something similar? We have computers that can interface at some degree with this brain. Why aren't they at least picking up some interference from this magic power?

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB